Subject: Re: Nostradamus (was Re: FO. lists as tables) From: Paul Prescod <paul@xxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1999 12:09:06 -0400 |
Steve Schafer wrote: > > > Again, I don't see why that's such a bad thing. Sure, it means that > existing code bases are going to have to be tweaked in order to > conform to the specification, but I don't care about the angst of > programmers (myself included). I care about the angst of all of the > people who actually have to _use_ this stuff. People only get to use it if programmers implement it. No commercial vendor ever implemented DSSSL and it was not even as detailed and precise as you propose. Paul Prescod XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: Nostradamus (was Re: FO. lists , Steve Schafer | Thread | Re: Nostradamus (was Re: FO. lists , Steve Schafer |
passivetex, Sebastian Rahtz | Date | Re: Nostradamus (was Re: FO. lists , Paul Prescod |
Month |